Supreme Court of India
C. VENKATACHALAMversusAJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 618
- Decided
- 29 August 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
Authorized agents may appear and plead before Consumer Forums; such appearance is not inconsistent with Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Summary
Two consumer complaints were filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum, and the opposite parties objected to the appearance of an authorized agent who was not an advocate. The High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 permits parties to be represented by authorized agents and that this does not violate the Advocates Act, 1961. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether such representation amounts to the practice of law prohibited by Section 33 of the Advocates Act and considered the legislative intent of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court affirmed that the statute expressly allows authorized agents, that their appearance is a permissible privilege and not the practice of law, and that the forums may regulate agents through rules and regulations. It directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to frame comprehensive rules governing the qualification, conduct and ethics of agents and dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Can an authorized agent who is not an advocate file complaints and represent parties before Consumer Forums without violating the Advocates Act, 1961?
- Does the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its Rules confer a right of audience to non‑advocates?
- Can a court compel a consumer to engage an advocate when authorized agents are permitted by statute?
- Is the appearance of authorized agents before Consumer Forums tantamount to the practice of law prohibited under Section 33 of the Advocates Act?
- Do Consumer Forums have the authority to regulate the conduct and qualifications of authorized agents?
Legislation cited
Subjects
consumer protectionauthorized agentnon‑advocate representationAdvocates ActConsumer Protection Actquasi‑judicial forumstatutory interpretationregulation of agentsright of audience
Judgment
[2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 814
A C. VENKATACHALAM
v.
AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 868 of 2003)
AUGUST 29, 2011
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
c
Historical perspective of the consumer movement -
Discussed.
Appearance before consumer fora by"authorised agent"
- Permissibility - Whether authorized agents, who are not
D advocates, can file complaints and represent persons before
the Consumer fora as a lawyer and whether this would not
violate the Advocates Act - Held: The appearance of
authorized agents is not inconsistent with s. 33 of the
Advocates Act - The legislature in its wisdom has granted
E permission to the authorized agents because most of the
cases before the Consumer Forums are small cases of
relatively poor people where legal intricacies are not involved
and great legal skills are not required, which may be handled
by the authorized agents - The other reason is that a large
F number of litigants may not be able to afford heavy
professional fees of trained advocates, therefore, authorized
agents have been permitted - The agents have been
permitted to appear to accomplish the main object of the act
of disposal of consumers' complaints expeditiously with no
G costs or small costs - The High Court was fully justified in
observing that the authorised agents do not practise Jaw when
they are permitted to appear before the District Forums and
the State Commissions - The legislature has given an option
to the parties before the Consumer Forums to either
H 814
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 815
ORS.
personally appear or be represented by an 'authorized agent' A
or by an advocate, then the court would not be justified in
taking away that option or interpreting the statute differently -
The functioning, conduct and behaviour of authorized agents
can always be regulated by the Consumer Forums - When
the legislature has permitted authorized agents to appear on B
behalf of the complainant, then the courts can't compel the
consumer to engage the services of an advocate -Advocates
Act, 1961 - s.33.
Rules for regulation of practice by agents,
representatives, registered organizations and/or non- C
advocates before consumer fora - Held: In order to ensure
smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the
National Commission, the State Commissions and the
District Forums, direction issued to the National Commission
to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the D
agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non-
advocates appearing before the National Commission, the
State Commissions and the District Forums governing
qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agentslnon-
advocateslrepresentatives, registered organizations and/or E
agents appearing before the consumer forums.
Advocates Appearance by non-advocate
representative before authorities and forums - Permissibility
- Held: Many statutes and Acts in India permit non-advocates F
to represent the parties before the authorities and forums -
In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are permitted to
appear before quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts - In -
most of these jurisdictions, specific rules have been framed
for the regulation of qualifications, conduct and ethical G
behaviour of the non-advocates appearing in these fora - In
most jurisdictions, the statutes or court rules impose some
form of restrictions on appearances of non-advocate
representatives in quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts -
Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary significantly in H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R
A terms of their specificity, but most forums have rules granting
them some discretion in admitting or refusing the appearance
of a non-advocate representative.
In the instant appeals, the issue which arose for
consideration was whether authorized agents, who are
8
not advocates, can file complaints and represent persons
before the Consumer fora as a lawyer and whether this
would not violate the Advocates Act, 1961.
The appellants contended that ordinarily the right to
C practise has been given only to advocates who are
enrolled with the Bar Council of a State. Placing reliance
on provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, as also
international law and conventions, the appellants
contended that only advocates can act, plead and argue
D before the Consumer Forums and that the agents have
no legal training to handle complicated legal matters
pertaining to consumers and hence they cannot be
permitted to practise law before the Consumer Forums.
E The High Court vide the impugned judgment held
that a party before the District Consumer Forum/State
Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of
an advocate and also that the right of audience inheres
in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the
proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the
F State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or
in conflict with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD:
Historical perspective of the consumer movement
1.1. The consumer movement had primarily started
in the West. The organized English consumer movement
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 817
ORS.
started after the Second World War. The Labour Party for A
the first time gave slogan of "battle for the consumers"
in Parliament. In the decade of 1960, number of
legislations were introduced in Britain for the protection
of the consumers. The consumer movement in the
United States of America developed in the beginning of B
the 19th century. Subsequently, the General Assembly of
the United Nations adopted a set of general guidelines
for consumer protection and toe Secretary General of the
United Nations was authorized to persuade member
countries to adopt these guidelines through policy c
changes or law. These guidelines constitute a
comprehensive policy framework outlining what
governments need to do to promote consumer protection
in following seven areas: Physical safety; Protection and
Promotion of the consumer economic interest; 0
Standards for the safety and quality of consumer goods
and services; Distribution facilities .for consumer goods
and services; Measures enabling consumers to obtain
redress; Measures relating to specific areas (food, water
and pharmaceuticals); and Consumer education and
E
information programme. Though not legally binding, the
guidelines provide an internationally recognized set of
basic objectives particularly for governments of
developing and newly independent countries for
structuring and strengthening their consumer protection
policies and legislations. These guidelines were adopted F
recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in
economic terms, educational levels and bargaining power
and bearing in mind that consumers should have the
right of access to non hazardous products as well as the
importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable G
economic and social development. [Paras 23, 27, 28, 33,
34] (836-A; 837-A-C; 839-E-H; 840-A-D]
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) SC R
A Indian perspective
1.2. It was in this background that the Indian
Parliament had enacted the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. The declared objective of the statute was "to
provide for better protection of the interests of
8
consumers." It seeks to provide a speedy and
inexpensive remedy to the consumer. The· Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 is one of the benevolent social
legislations intended to protect the large body of
C consumers from exploitation. The Act has come as a
panacea for consumers all over the country and is
considered as one of the most important legislations
enacted for the benefit of the consumers. The Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 provides inexpensive and prompt
remedy. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dedicated,
D as its preamble shows, to provide for effective protection
of the rights of the consumers. According to the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, it seeks to provide
speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. The
object of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and
E speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against
defective goods and deficient services and for that a
quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set up at
the District, State and Central levels. The Consumer
Protection Act has come to meet the long-felt necessity
F of protecting common man from wrongs for which the
remedy under the ordinary law for various reasons has
become illusory. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was
amended in the years 1991, 1993 and in 2002 to make it
more effective and purposeful. To effectuate this
G objective, a provision has been made in Chapter II of the
Act for the constitution of 'the Central Consumer
Protection Council' and 'the State Consumer Protection
Councils." The purpose as indicated in section 6 is to
"promote and protect the rights of consumers" against
H the "marketing of goods and services which are
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 819
ORS.
hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed A
about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and
price of goods or services, as the case may be, so as to
protect the consumer against unfair trade ~ractices; the
right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a
variety of goods and services at competitive prices; the B
right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's
interests will receive due consideration at appropriate
Forums; the right to seek redressal against unfair trade
practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous
exploitation of consumers and the right to consumer c
education." A perusal of Chapter II clearly shows that. the
statute seeks to protect the 'consumer' of goods and
services in every possible way. It aims at providing a
speedy and inexpensive remedy. Any interpretation of
the provisions of the 1986 Act and the rules framed
0
thereunder must promote this objective of the enactment.
In furtherance of the declared objective of protecting the
consumer against exploitation as well as providing an
inexpensive and speedy remedy, the competent authority
has framed Rules which enable the party to appear either
personally or through an 'agent'. [Paras 35 to 41] [840-E- E
H; 841-A-H; 842-A-B]
Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and Another
(1978) 2 SCC 165: 1978 (3) SCR 493 - referred to.
F
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1893 (1) Q.B.
256; Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562 and Donald
C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382, 111
N.E. 1050 - referred to.
O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi and Others G
1968 (2) SCR 709 - cited.
Article on "Consumer Movement" by Paul S. Boyer
[Oxford Companion to United States History, 2001] -
referred to. H
· 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Legislative intention
2.1. The agents have been permitted to appear before
the Consumer Forums. The appearance of authorized
agents is not inconsistent with section 33 of the
B Advocates Act, 1961. The legislature in its wisdom has
granted permission to the authorized agents because
most of the cases before the Consumer Forums are small
cases of relatively poor people where legal intricacies are
not involved and great legal skills are not required, which
may be handled by the authorized agents. The other
C reason is that a large number of litigants may not be able
to afford heavy professional fees of trained advocates,
therefore, authorized agents have been permitted. It is the
bounden duty and obligation of the Court to carefully
discern the legislative intention and articulate the same.
D In the instant case one is not really called upon to discern
legislative intention because there is specific rule defining
the agents and the provisions of permitting them to
appear before the Consumer For.::ns. The agents have
been permitted to appear to accomplish the main object
E of the act of disposal of consumers' complaints
expeditiously with no costs or small costs. [Paras 79 to
82] [854-B-F]
2.2. The High Court was fully justified in observing
F that the authorised agents do not practise law when they
are permitted to appear before the District Forums and
the State Commissions. In the impugned judgment the
High Court aptly observed that many statutes, such as,
Sales Tax, Income Tax and Competition Act also permit
non-advocates to represent the parties before the
G authorities and those non-advocates cannot be said to
practise law. On the same analogy those non-advocates
who appear before Consumer fora also cannot be said
to practise law. [Paras 83, 84] [854-G-H; 855-A-B]
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 821
ORS.
2.3. The legislature has given an option to the parties A
before the Consumer Forums to either personally appear
o· be represented l:iy an 'authorized agent' or by an
advocate, then the court would not be justified in taking
away that option or interpreting the statute differently.
[Para 85] [855-8-C] B
2"4. The functioning, conduct and behaviour of
authorized agents can always be regulated by the
Consumer Forums. When the legislature has permitted
authorized agents to appear on behalf of the C
complainant, then the courts can't compel the consumer
to engage the services of an advocate. [Paras 86, 87] [855-
D-E]
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla and Another v. Union of India
ci11d Another AIR 1957 SC 628; Anandji Haridas & Company D
Private Limiter! ' Engineenng Mazdoor Sangh and Another
(1975) 3 SCC 862: 1975 (3) SCR 542; Kartar Singh v. State
of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 (2) SCR 375; District
Mining Officer and Others v. Tata Iron and Steel Company
and Another (2001) 7 SCC 358: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 147; E
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A and Another (2002)
4 SCC 105: 2002 (2) SCR 411; Lucknow Development
Authority v. MK. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243: 1993 (3) Suppl.
SCR 615; Lax mi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial
Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583: 1995 (3) SCR 174; Indian F
Photographic Company Limited v. H.O. Shourie (1999) 6
SCC 428: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 9; Or. J.J. Merchant and
Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635: 2002 (1)
Suppl. ·scR 469; Common Cause, A Registered Society v.
Union of India and others (1997) 10 SCC 729: 1993 (1) SCR G
1O - referred to.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England,
Vol. I, 2001; Edited by Wayne Morrison.
3. The National Commission being aware of a H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C R
A possibility of misuse of the right by an agent had framed
Regulation 30-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
wherein certain restrictions on the right of audience and
also certain precautions to rule out any misuse of liberty
granted has been taken by way of framing Regulation 16.
B Clauses 6 and 7 of Regulation 16 were enacted for
providing proper guidelines and safeguards for
regulating appearance and audience of the agents. The
aforesaid regulation is a reasonable restriction on the
right to appear by an agent. Such reasonable restrictions
c as provided for are to be strictly adhered to and complied
with by the Consumer Forum hearing cases under the
Consumer Protection Act so as to rule out any misuse
of the privilege granted. In terms of the said ·regulation
and other regulations as provided and framed by the
National Commissi~ and as approved by the Parliament
0
of India, the Consumer Forum has the right to prevent an
authorized agent to appear in case it is found and
believed that he is using the said right as a profession.
The Consumer Forums being empowered with such
Regulations would be in a position to judge whether the
E agent appearing before it is in any manner exercising
such privileges granted for any ulterior purpose. [Paras
88, 89] [855-F; 856-C-E]
4. Many statutes and Acts in India permit non-
F advocates to represent the parties before the authorities
and forums. In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are
permitted to appear before quasi-judicial fora or
subordinate courts. In most of these jurisdic.tions,
specific rules have been framed for the regulation of
G qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of the non-
advocates appearing in these fora. In most jurisdictions,
the statutes or court rules impose some form of
restrictions on appearances of non-advocate
representatives in quasi-judicial fora or subordinate
H courts. Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 823
ORS.
significantly in terms of their specificity, but most forums A
have rules granting them some discretion in admitting or
refusing the appearance of a non-advocate
representative. [Paras 90, 91 and 92] [856-F-H; 857-A-D]
Directions
B
5.1. In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform
and unvarying functioning of the National Commission,
the State Commissions and the District Forums, it is
deemed appropriate to direct the National Commission to
frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the C
agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or
non-advocates appearing before the National
Commission, the State Commissions and the District
Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and
ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates D
representatives, registered organizations and/or agents
appearing before the consumer forums. [Para 109] [862-
B-C]
The National Commission may consider following
E
suggestions while framing rules
5.2. The Commission may consider non-advocates
appearing without accreditation - A party may appoint a
non-advocate as its representative provided that the
representative - F
(1) is appearing on an individual case basis
(2) has a pre-existing relationship with the
complainant (e.g., as a relative, neighbour, G
business associate or personal friend)
(3) is not receiving any form of direct or indirect
remuneration for appearing before the Forum
and files a written declaration to that effect
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (4) demonstrates to the presiding officer of the
Forum that he or she is competent to represent
the party.
Accreditation Process
B (a) The National Commission may consider
creating a process through which non-
advocates may be accredited to practice as
representatives before a Forum.
c (b) Non-advocates who are accredited through
this process shall be allowed to appear before
a Forum on a regular basis
(c) The accreditation process may consist of -
D (1) an written examination that tests an
applicant's knowledge of relevant law
and ability to make legal presentations
and arguments
E (2) an inspection of the applicant's
educational and professional
background
(3) an inspection of the applicant's criminal
record
F
(d) the National Commission may prescribe
additional requirements for accreditation at its
discretion provided that the additional
requirements are not arbitrary and do not
G violate existing law or the Constitution ..
Fees
(a) A representative who wishes to receive a fee
must file a written request before the Forum
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 825
ORS.
(b) The presiding officer will decide the amount of A
the fee, if any, a representative may charge or
receive
(c) When evaluating a representative's request for
a fee, the presiding officer may consider the B
following factors :
(1) the extent and type of services the
representative performed
(2) the complexity of the case c
(3) the level of skill and competence
required of the representative in giving
the services
(4) the amount of time the representative D
spent on the case; and
(5) the ability of the party to pay the fee
(d) If a party is seeking monetary damages, its E
representative may not seek more a fee of
more than 20% of the damages
Code of Conduct for representatives
- The National Commission to create a code of conduct F
which would apply to non-advocates, registered
organizations and agents appearing before a Forum.
Disciplinary Powers of a Forum
(a) The presiding officer of a Forum may be given G
specific power to discipline non-advocates,
agents, authorized organizations and
representatives for violating the code of
conduct or other behaviour that is unfitting in
a Forum H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A (a) In exercising its disciplinary authority, the
presiding officer may - '
(1) revoke a representative•'s privilege to
appear before the instant case
8 (2) suspend a representative's privilege to
appear before the Forum
(3) ban a representative from appearing
before the forum
c
(4) impose a monetary fine on the
representative [Para 11 O] [862-0-H; 863-
A-H; 864-A-H]
5.3. The National Commission is directed to frame
D comprehensive Rules as expeditiously as possible, in
any event, within three m'lnths from the date of
communication of this order. The copy of this judgment
be sent to the National Commission. [Para 111] [865-A]
E Case Law Reference:
1968 (2) SCR 709 cited Para 20
1978 (3) SCR 493 referred to Para 21, 52
1893 (1) Q.B. 256 referred to Para 23
F
(1932) A.C. 562 referred to Para 25
217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 referred to Para 28
AIR 1957 SC 628 referred to Para 58
G 1975 (3) SCR 542 referred to Para 59
1994 (2) SCR 375. referred to Para 60
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 147 referred to Para 61
H 2002 (2) SCR 411 referred to Para 62
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 827
ORS.
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 referred to Para 74 A
1995 (3) SCR 174 referred to Para 75
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 9 referred to Para 76
2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 469 referred to Para 77
B
1993 (1) SCR 10 referred to Para 78
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 868
of 2003.
From the Judgment & Ord.er dated 04.09.2002 of the High c
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1425 of
2002.
WITH
D
C.A. Nos. 869-870 of 2003.
J.L. Gupta, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta, K.K Bhat, Meera
Mathew (for M.J. Paul), Sanjeev Sachdeva, Pree Pal Singh,
Vibhu Verma for the Appellant.
E
Bharat Sangal, Vernica Tomar, Alka Singh for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. These appeals emanate F
from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147
and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals
by a common judgment because same questions of law are
involved in these appeals. G
BRIEF FACTS:
2. A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged
deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District
H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R
A Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short,
Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the
pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the
opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should
not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the
B complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate The
Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the
authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the
Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.
3. In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the
C Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view U1at the
authorized agents have a right \o file, act, appear, argue the
complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer
Agencies. The issue was taken to the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission)
D which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized
agents were appearing and ref•Jsed to grant stay where
authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the
Consumer Forum. As a result, the proceedings in a large
number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing
E had come to standstill.
4. The interim order passed by the State Commission was
challenged in two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court
The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench. The High
F Court held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have "trappings of a civil court"
but "are not civil courts within the meaning of the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure."
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a
G party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission
cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate.
6. The High Court further held that the Act of 1986 is a
special piece of legislation for the better protection of the
H interests of consumers. The Act has been enacted to give
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 829
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers A
quickly with nil or small expense. The Consumer Forum created
under the Act of 1986 is uninhibited by the requirement of court
fee or the formal procedures of court - civil or criminal. .... any
recognized consumers Association can espouse his
cause ...... Even the Central Government or State Governments B
can act on his/their behalf. .. restrictive meaning shall not be
consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986 ... The right to
appear, therefore, includes right to address the Court,
examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc ..
7. The Division Bench also held that the right of audience C
inheres in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the
proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the State
Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
D
8. The Division Bench also observed that the right of an
advocate to practise is not an absolute right but is subject to
other provisions of the Act. According to the Division Bench,
permitting the authorized agents to represent parties to the
proceedings before the District Forum/State Commission E
cannot be said to practise law.
9. The Division Bench also held that there are various
statutes like Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and the Monopolies
and Restrictive Trade Practices Act which permit non-advocates
to represent the parties before the authorities under those Acts
F
and those non-advocates appearing before those Forums for
the parties cannot be said to practise law. The Rules of 2000
framed under Act of 1986 permit authorized agents to appear
for the parties and such appearance of ·authorized agents
cannot be said to be inconsistent with section 33 of Advocates G
Act.
10. The Division Bench also dealt with the disciplinary
aspect of the matter and held that if authorized agent appearing
for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or exhibits violent H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of
the District Forum or State Commission or interferes with the
smooth progress of the case then it is always open to such
District Forum or State Commission to pass an appropriate
order refusing such authorized agent the audience in a given
B case.
11. These appeals have been preferred before this court
against the impugned judgment.
12. A two-judge Bench of this Court on 21.2.2007 refllrred
C these matters to a larger Bench in view of the importance of
the matter. The order dated 21.2.2007 reads as under:
"The basic issue involved in these appeals is whether a
person under the purported cover of being an "agent" can
D represent large number of persons before the forums
created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short
the 'Act') and the Rules made thereunder. According to the
appellant Rule relating to agents cannot be used to by
passing stipulations under the provisions of the Advocates
Act, 1961 (in short the 'Advocates Act'), more particularly
E
under Sections 29, 31 and 32. Rule 2(b) of the Consumer
Protection Rules, 1987 (in short the 'The Rules') defines
an 'agent' as under:
"agent means a person duly authorized by a
F party to present any complaint, appeal or
reply on its behalf before the National
Commission."
Similarly, Rule. 14(1) and 14(3) also deal with the acts
G which an agent can undertake.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006 (R.D. Nagpal Vs. Vijay
Dutt & Anr.) this Court has accepted the stand that even a
Doctor is authorised by a party can cross examine the
H complainant.
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 831
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
So far as individual cases are concerned, it may not A
present difficulty. But the question is whether somebody
who is not a lega! practitioner, can represent large number
of parties before their forums thereby frustrating objects
embodied in the Advocates Act.
B
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
a large number of persons who are otherwise not entitled
to appear before the forums are doing so under the garb
of being agents.
As the matter is of great importance, we refer the same C
to a larger Bench.
Papers may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India so that necessary orders can be passed for
placing these matters oefore the appropriate Bench." D
13. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has referred these
appeals before a three judge Bench.
14. It is imperative to properly comprehend the objects and
reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to deal
;
E
with the controversy involved in the case.
"Statement of Objects and Reasons - The Consumer
Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection
of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make
F
provisions for the establishment of Consumer Councils and
other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes
and for matters connected therewith.
2. It seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of
consumers such as- G
(a) the right to be protected against marketing of goods
which are hazardous to life and property;
(b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity,
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A potency, purity, standard and price of goods to
protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access
to an array of goods at competitive prices;
B (d) the right to be heard and to be assured that
consumer interests will receive due consideration
at appropriate forums;
(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade
c practices or unscrupulous exploitation of
consumers; and
(f) right to consumer education.
3. These objects are sought to be promoted and protected
D by the Consumer Protection Council to be established at
the Central and State level.
4. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer
disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set-
E up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-
judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice
and have been empowered to give relief of a specific
nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders
given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been
F provided."
15. Mr. Santosh Paul, learned counsel appearing for the'
appellants argued these appeals and also submitted the written
submissions. He submitted that ordinarily right to practise has
G been given only to advocates who are enrolled with the Bar
Council of a State. Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961
recognised advocates as class of persons entitled to practise
the profession of law. Section 29 reads as under:
H "29. Advocates to be the only recognized class of
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 833
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
persons entitled to practice law - Subject to the A
provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there
shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of
persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely,
advocates."
B
16. Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 deals with the
power of court to permit appearances in particular cases where
court can permit any person not enrolled as an advocate.
..Section 32 reads as under:
"Power of Court to permit appearances in particular C
cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any
person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to
appear before it or him in any particular case."
D
17. Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 says that no
person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to
practise in any court or before any authority unless he is enrolled
as an advocate. Section 33 reads as under:
"Advocates alone entitled to practise - Except as E
otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the
time being in force, no person shall, on or after the
appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before
any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate
under this Act." · F
18. According to Mr. Paul, analysis of these provisions lead
to clear conclusion that only advocates can act, plead and argue
before the Consumer Forums.
G
19. He placed reliance on the following judgments of this
court:-
20. In O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi and
Others 1968 (2) SCR 709, the court held as under:-
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 'The object of the Act is thus to constitute one common
Bar for the whole country and to provide machinery for its
regulated functioning. Since the Act sets up one Bar,
autonomous in its character, the Bar Councils set up
thereunder have been entrusted with the power to regulate
B the working of the profession and to prescribe rules of
professional conduct and etiquette, and the power to
punish those who commit breach of such rules. The power
of punishment is entrusted to the disciplinary committees
ensuring a trial of an advocate by his peers. Sections 35,'
c 36 and 37 lay down the procedure for trying complaints,
punishment and an appeal to the Bar Council of India from
the orders passed by the State Bar Councils. As an
additional remedy section 38 provides a further appeal to
the Supreme Court. Though the Act relates to the legal
practitioners, in its pith and substance it is an enactment
D
which concerns itself with the qualifications, enrollment,
right to practise and discipline of the advocates. As
provided by the Act once a person is enrolled by any one
of the State Bar Councils, he becomes entitled to practise
in all courts including the Supreme Court. As aforesaid, the
E Act creates one common Bar, all its members being of
one class, namely, advocates. Since all those who have
been enrolled ·have a right to practise in the Supreme Court
and the High Courts, the Act is a piece of legislation which
deals with persons entitled to practise before the Supreme
F Court and the High Courts. Therefore the Act must be held
to fall within entries 77 and 78 of List I. As the power of
legislation relating to those entitled to practise in the
Supreme Court and the High Courts is carved out from the
general power to legislate in relation to legal and other
G professions in entry 26 of List 111, it is an error to say, as
the High Court did, that the Act is a composite legislation
partly falling under entries 77 and 78 of List I and partly
under entry 26 of List Ill."
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 835
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
21. In Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and A
Another (1978) 2 SCC 165, the court held as under:-
"Advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this Court
(Section 30(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ). But, this
privilege cannot be claimed as of right by any one else. 8
While it is true that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees
the freedom to practise any profession, it is open to the
State to make a law imposing, in the interest of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
The Advocates Act, by Section 29, provides for such a
reasonable restriction, namely, that the only class of · C
persons entitled to practise the profession of law shall be
advocates. Even so, is it not open to a party who is unable
for some reason or other to present his case adequately
to seek the help of another person in this behalf? To
negative such a plea may be to deny justice altogether in D
certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy and
indigence and judicial processes of a sophisticated
nature. That is precisely why legislative policy has taken
care to provide for such contingencies. Sections 302, 303
and 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code are indicative of E
the policy of the legislature. I do not think that in this Court
we should totally shut out representation by any person
other than the party himself in situations where an advocate
is not appearing for the party .... "
F
22. Mr. Paul appearing for the appellants also gave
reference to international law and conventions to strengthen his
submissions that only advocates enrolled with the respective
Bar Councils alone can practise in the Consumer Forums and
the agents cannot appear. He submitted that practice under the G
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires extensive legal skills
which only a trained legal practitioner possesses and he alone
can discharge those functions. He submitted that the agents
have no legal training to handle complicated legal matters
pertaining to consumers and hence the agents cannot be
permitted to practise law before the Consumer Forums. H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A Historical perspective of the consumer movement
23. The consumer movement had primarily started in the
West. We can trace history of the consumer movement from
the judgment of the leading case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company 1893 (1) Q.B. 256. In this case first time
8
Manufacturers' liability for minimum quality standard for product
was established.
24. For the first time in 1856 a select committee
recommended that a cheap and easy remedy, by a summary
C charge before a magistrate, should be afforded to consumers
who received adulterated or falsely described food. This
suggestion was taken up in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.
Section 17 of the Act provides as follows :
0 "That a person applying a trade description to a product
was deemed to warrant that it was true, so that a false
trade description constituted breach of both criminal and
civil law."
25. In a leading English case Donoghue v. Stevenson
E (1932) A.C. 562, where the consumer claimed to have suffered
injury as well as result of drinking from a bottle of ginger-beer
containing a decomposed snail. Over a strong dissent the
majority held that the manufacturer would be liable. The case
did not herald strict liability but it facilitated more claims than
F were provided under the nineteenth century approach. Lord
Atkin enunciated the manufacturer's duty of care in the following
words:
" .......... the preparation or putting up of the products will
G result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes
a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable CC!re."
26. This theory of strict liability already exists under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1961.
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 837
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
27. The organized English consumer movement started A
after the Second World War. The Labour Party for the first time
gave slogan of "battle for the consumers" in Parliament. In the
decade of 1960, number of legislations were introduced in
Britain for lhP protection of the consumers. The Consumer
Safety Act, 1978 was enacted. B
United States of America
28. The consumer movement in the United States of
America developed in the beginning of the 19th century when
in Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. C
382, 111 N.E. 1050 the New York Court of Appeal observed
that a car manufacturer had to compensate a consumer who
had been injured when one of the car wheels collapsed because
of defect. The court held that the manufacturer had been
negligent because the defect could h:;ive been discovered by D
reasonable inspection. In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety
Act was enacted.
29. Paul S. Boyer, a distinguished author, in his article on
"Consumer Movement", published· by The Oxford Companion
E
to United States History, 2001, has mentioned about the
modern consumer movement. The relevant following extract is
instructive and is reproduced as under.
"The modern consumer movement arose in the
Progressive Era, as citizens concerned about unsafe F
products and environmental hazards used lobbying, voting,
and journalistic exposes to press for government
protection. In the same vein, the Consumers Union (1936),
publisher of Consumer Reports, tests products for safety,
economy, and reliability, to give consumers an objective G
basis for choice .
.. .. .. .Such socially engaged consumerism actually had
long historical antecedents, including Revolutionary Era
patriots who had boycotted English tea and textiles and H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A abolitionists who had refused to purchase goods made of
slave ]produced cotton.
Consumer activism ;evived in the late 1960s, flourished in
the 1970s, and, despite a conservative backlash against
government regulation, survived in diminished form in the
B
1990s. A by ]product of 1960s social activism, consumer
advocates insisted on citizens' rights to safe and
reasonably priced goods and services and to the full
disclosure of product information. The lawyer Ralph Nader
gained fame for Unsafe at Any Speed (1965), which
c detailed safety hazards plaguing General Motors' (GM)
Corvair automobile. Using $425,000 won in an
invasion ]of ]privacy suit against GM 1n 1970, N?der
founded numerous consumer groups, nicknamed "Nader's
Raiders," that pursued legal challenges to unsafe products
0 and demanded greater government protection for
consumers. The formation of the Consumer Federation of
America (1968). the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (1970). and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (1972) attested to the movement's success
E but also to its regulatory and legalistic bent. Focused on
consumers' rights, the modern movement downplayed the
power of consumers to effect social change."
30. Ralph Nader played an extremely important role in
F consumer movement in the United States of America. A note
appears in "America in Ferment : The Tumultuous 1960s -
Ralph Nader and the Consumer Movement.' An extract is
reproduced. It reads :-
"Ralph Nader has been called the nation's nag. He
G denounced soft drinks for containing excessive amounts
of sugar (more than nine teaspoons a can). He warned
Americans about the health hazards of red dyes used as
food colorings and of nitrates used as preservatives in hot
dogs. He even denounced high heels: "It is part of the whole
H tyranny of fashion, where women will inflict pain on
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 839
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
themselves ... for what, to please men." Since the mid- A
1960s, Ralph Nader has been the nation's leading
consumer advocate."
31. Ralph Nader is an extraordinary example of total
devotion to the cause. It is men like him who leave an imprint
8
and make history. Consumer movements all over the world have
taken great inspiration from Ralph Nader.
32. Every year 15th March is observed as the World
Consumer Rights Day. On that day in 1962 President John F.
Kennedy of the United States called upon the United States C
Congress to accord its approval to the Consumer Bill of Rights.
They are (i) right to choice; (ii) right to information; (iii) right to
safety; and (iv) right to be heard. President Gerald R. Ford
added one more right i.e. right to consumer education. Further
other rights such as right to healthy environment and right to D
basic needs (food, clothing and shelter) were added.
Unfortunately, in most of the countries these rights are still not
available to the consumers. In India 24th December every year
celebrated as National Consumer Rights Day.
E
33. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted
a set of general guidelines for consumer protection
and the Secretary General of the United Nations
was authorized to persuade member countries to
adopt these guidelines through policy changes or
law. These guidelines constitute a comprehensive F
policy framework outlining what governments need
to do to promote consumer protection in following
seven areas:
(i) Physical safety; G
(ii) Protection and Promotion of the consumer
economic interest;
(iii) Standards for the safety and quality of consumer
goods and services; H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (iv) Distribution facilities for consumer goods and
services;
(v) Measures enabling consumers to obtain redress;
(vi) Measures relating to specific areas (food, water
B and pharmaceuticals); and
(vii) Consumer education and information programme.
34. Though not legally binding, the guidelines provide an
C internationally recognized set of basic objectives particularly for
governments of developing and newly independent countries
for structuring and strengthening their consumer protection
policies and legislations. These guidelines were adopted
recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in economic
terms, educational levels and bargaining power and bearing in
D mind that consumers should have the right of access to non
hazardous products as well as the importance of promoting just,
equitable and sustainable economic and social development.
Indian perspective
E
35. It was in this background that the Indian Parliament had
enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The declared
objective of the statute was ·'to provide for better protection of
the interests of consumers." It seeks to provide a speedy and
F inexpensive remedy to the consumer.
36. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of the
benevolent social legislations intended to protect the large body
of consumers from exploitation. The Act has come as a
panacea for consumers all over the country and is considered
G as one of the most important legislations enacted for the benefit
of the consumers. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
provides inexpensive and prompt remedy.
37. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dedicated, as
H its preamble shows, to provide for effective protection of the
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 841
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)
rights of the consumers. According to the Statement of Objects A
and Reasons, it seeks to provide speedy and simple redressal
to consumer disputes. The object of the Act is to render simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with
complaints against defective goods and deficient services and
for that a quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set B
up at the District, State and Central levels. The Consumer
Protection Act has come to meet the long-felt necessity of
protecting common man from wrongs for which the remedy
under the ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory.
38. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended in C
the years 1991, 1993 and in 2002 to make it more effective
and purposeful.
39. To effectuate this objective, a provision has been made
in Chapter II of the Act for the constitution of 'the Central D
Consumer Protection Council' and 'the State Consumer
Protection Councils." The purpose as indicted in section 6 is
to "promote and protect the rights of consumers" against the
"marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life
and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, E
potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, as the
case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade
practices; the right to be assured, wherever possible, access
to a variety of goods and services at competitive prices; the
right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's interests F
will receive due consideration at appropriate Forums; the right
to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or restrictive
trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers and
the right to consumer education."
40. A perusal of Chapter II clearly shows that the statute G
seeks to protect the 'consumer' of goods and services in every
possible way. It aims at providing a speedy and inexpensive
remedy. Any interpretation of the provisions of the 1986 Act and
the rules framed thereunder must promote this objective of the
enactment. H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A 41. In furtherance of the declared objective of protecting
the consumer against explbitatfon as well as providing an
inexpensive and speedy remedy, the competent authority has
framed Rules which enable the party to appear either personally
or through an 'agent'.
B
42. The issue is - Do the Rules permit a party to have an
'Agent' for merely presenting the papers on its behalf or can
the Agent even act and argue?
Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 1987
c
Rule 2(b) defines an Agent to mean "a person duly
authorized by a party to present any complaint,
appeal or reply on its behalf before the State
Commission or the District Forum."
D Under Rule 4(7), the parties are obliged to either
appear personally or through "authorized agent." If
"the complainant or his authorized agent fails to
appear before the District Forum" it may "in its
discretion either dismiss the complaint for default .
E or decide it on merit." Similarly, "where the Qpposite
party (defendant) or its authorized agent fails to
appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum
may decide the complaint ex parte."
F A perusal of the provisions show that while the
advocates have not been debarred from pleading
and appearing, the parties have been given an
option to either appear personally or be
represented by "duly authorized" agents. Every
G advocate appointed by a party is an agent.
However, the agent as contemplated under the rules
need not necessarily be an advocate.
The provision in the Rules promotes the object of
the statute. It is meant to help the consumer to
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 843
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
vindicate his right without being burdened with A
intricate procedures and heavy professional fees.
In the very nature of things, the disputes under the
1986 Act can involve claims for small amounts of
money by way of compensation. Engagement of B
advocates in all such matters may not be
economically Vi<Jble. It is equally possible that the
claim may involve professional expertise. To
illustrate: A person may sue a hospital for medical
negligence. Or an Architect for a faulty design. Or C
a building contractor for defective work. In such
cases, a professional like a doctor, architect or an
engineer may be more suitable than an advocate.
Thus, both the parties have been given an option
to choose from an advocate or any other person
who may even be a professional expert in the D
particular field.
43. Such an interpretation is not only literally correct but
also promotes the declared objective of the statute. It helps the
claimant and the defendant equally. It does not violate any E
provision of the Advocates Act.
44. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended in
the year 2002, in pursuance to the United Nations resolution
passed in April, 1985 indicating certain guidelines under which ,
the Government could make law for better protection of the F
interest of the consumers. Such laws were necessary,
particularly in the developing countries to protect the consumers
from hazards to their health and safety and to provide them
available speedier and cheaper redressal of their grievances.
G
45. The amended Act 62 of 2002 reads as under:
"Amendment Act 62 of 2002. - The enactment of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an important
milestone in the history of the consumer movement in the
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A country. The Act was made to provide for the better
protection and promotion of consumer rights through the
establishment Consum_er Councils and quasi-judicial
machinery. Under the Act, consumer disputes redressal
agencies have been set up throughout the country with the
a District Forum at the district level, State Commission at
the State level and National Commission at the National
level to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to
the consumers with complaints against defective goods,
deficient services and unfair and restrictive trade practices.
c The Act was also amended in the years 1991 and 1993
to make it more effective and purposeful."
46. In the developed countries the consumer movement
has been going on for several decades in which the trader and
the consumer find each other as adversaries.
D
47. The Consumer Protection Act. 1986 was enacted with
the object and intention of speedy disposal of consumer
disputes at a reasonable cost, which is otherwise not possible
in ordinary judicial/court system.
E
48. Jn the book on Administrative law, its distinguished
author M.P. Jain has brought about the distinction between the
Court and the Tribunal. According to him Courts are bound by
prescribed rules of procedures and evidence and their
proceedings are conducted in public. The lawyers are entitled
F to appear before them and the judge in the open Court hears
the case and decides it by giving reasons for a judgment. The
courts are totally independent of the executive will, whereas, the
Tribunals are not ordinarily governed by the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, except to the extent
G it is indicative in the Act itself. There is also a significant
difference between the Court and the Tribunal with regard to
the appointment of Members. The object of the constitution of
a Tribunal is to provide speedy justice in a simple manner and
the Tribunal be should easily accessible to all.
H
. C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 845
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] .
49. According to the celebrated book on 'Administrative A
Law' by Wade, the other object of constituting a Tribunal is to
create specialist Forum which would include specialists in the
field to adjudicate efficiently and speedily the matters requiring
adjudication in that field and that commands the confidence of
all concerned in the quality and reliability of the result of such B
adjudication.
50. The Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 also defines the
expression 'agent' in the same manner.
51. The appellants submitted before the High Court that C
the complainant may appear through its authorized agent, but,
that doesn't mean that authorized agent is empowered to act,
appear or plead on behalf of the party before the State
Commission or the District Forum as a lawyer. According to
the appellants (Bar Council oflndia and advocate), the agent D
appointed by the complainant is empowered only to present
any complaint, appeal or rely on behalf of the party to the
complaint before the Consumer Forum by physically remaining
present on the date/dates of hearing. This contention was
rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court. E
52. According to the judgment of this Court in Harishankar
Rastogi (supra), a non-advocate can appear with the
permission of the Court. The Court may, in an appropriate case,
even after grant of permission withdraw it if the representative
proves himself reprehensible. It is only a privilege granted by F
the Court and it depends entirely on the discretion of the court.
53. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our ·
attention to Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection
Rules, 2000 which provides for procedure for hearing appeals. G
He also referred to sub-rules 1 and 6 of Rule 9 which reads as
under:
"9. Procedure for hearing appeal -
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A (1) Memorandum shall be presented by th 1a appellant or
his authorized agent to the State Commission in person
or sent by registered post addressed to the Commission.
(6) On the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing
may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or
B
their authorized agents to appear before the State
Commission. If appellant or his authorized agent fails to
appear on such date, the State Commission may, in its
discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the
merit of the case. If respondent or his authorized agents
c fails to appear on such date, the Stat1~ Commission shall
proceed ex-parte and shall decide thE1 appeal ex-parte on
merits of the case."
54. The clear interpretation of the Rules is that the
D authorised agent appointed by the (consumer) complainant may
appear before the Consumer Fora. The Consumer Fora may,
in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the
merit of the case. In this view of the matter, it is abundantly clear
that the authorized agent of the complainant can act and plead
E before the State Tribunal otherwise the complaint is liable to
the dismissed.
55. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
non-advocates are permitted to appear in various Forums
including Income Tax Tribunal, Sales Tax Tribunal and
F Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practises Tribunal, therefore,
wherever the legislature has accorded the permission to the
persons other than advocates, who appear before these
Tribunals can act and appear according to the object of the Act
and legislative intention.
G
Legislative intention
56. We deem it appropriate to briefly deal with the
importance of gathering legislative intention while interpreting
H provisions of law.
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 847
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
57. In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of A
England, Volume I, published in the year 2001 (Edited by Wayne
Morrison), it has been observed as under:-
"The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will
of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time
when the law was made, by signs the most natural and
B
probable. And these signs are either the words, the
context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence,
of the spirit and reason of the law."
58. A Constitution Bench of this Court in R. M.D. c
Chamarbaugwalla and Another v. Union of India and Another
AIR 1957 SC 628 has laid down that in interpreting the statute
the legislative intent is paramount and the duty of the Court is
to act upon the true intention of the legislature.
D
59. In Anandji Haridas & Company Private Limited v.
Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and Another (1975) 3 SCC 862,
this Court laid down that as a general principle of interpretation
where the words of a statute are plain, precise and
unambiguous, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered
from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence E
such as parliamentary debates, reports of the Committees of
the Legislature or even the statement made by the minister on
the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is
admissible to construe those words.
F
60. In another Constitution Bench judgment in Kartar Singh
v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, this Court has observed
that though normally the plain ordinary grammatical meaning of
an enactment affords the best guide and the object of
interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the G
legislature enacting it, other methods of extracting extracting the
meaning can be resorted to if the language is contradictory,
ambiguous or leads really to absurd results so as to keep at
the real sense and meaning.
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 61. In District Mining Officer and Others v. Tata Iron and
Steel Company and Another (2001) 7 SCC 358, a three Judge
Bench of this Court has observed:
"A statute is an edict of the legislature and in construing a
statute, it is necessary to seek the intention of its maker.
B A statute has to be construed according to the intent of
them that make it and the duty of the court is to act upon
the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision
is open to more than one interpretation, the court has to
choose that interpretation which represents the true
c intention of the legislature."
62. In Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and
Another(2002) 4 SCC 105, a three Judge Bench of this Court
has held as under:-
D
"The conventional way of interpreting a statute is to seek
the intention of its makers. If a statutory provision is open
to more than one interpretation then the Court has to
choose that interpretation which represents the true
intention of the legislature."
E
63. It is the bounden duty of the courts to discern legislative
intention and interpret the statutes accordingly. The instant case
Act and Rules have made specific provisions by which the
agents have been permitted to plead and appear on behalf of
F the parties before the Consumer Forums. Therefore, to interpret
it differently would be contrary to legislative intention.
64. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
the learned amicus curiae.
G 65. In the written submissions, Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta,
learned amicus curiae, submitted that the advocates in these
appeals can have no cause for any apprehension. In case, a
party chooses an incompetent person as its agent before the
Consumer Forum or the State Commission, he can pose no
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 849
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
competition or threat to any profession. Such a person will get A
automatically eliminated with the passage of time. However, in
case the parties choose competent persons to act an agents
and they perform well, it will not only promote the object of the
1986 Act and the Rules framed thereunder but also provide
healthy competition to the advocates. It violates no provision B
of the Advocates Act, 1961 or any other law. It can provide no
cause for complaint.
66. He further submitted that there is another aspect of the
matter. Every person has the right to lead a life of dignity. Every C
person has a right to work and make an honest living. Every
individual has the right and freedom to do anything so long as
he does not violate any law. Thus, a retired or even an
unemployed doctor, engineer, scientist, teacher or any other
person has the right to offer his/her services as an 'agent'. In
other words, an individual has the right to choose 'acting as D
agent' as his profession. Article 19(1 )(g) guarantees that
freedom. The mandate of Article 21 is fulfilled. In doing so, he
does not practise the profession of law or violate the provisions
of the Advocates Act, 1961. He only invokes the freedom
guaranteed under the Constitution and exercises the right E
conferred by the Rules. He merely helps the party before the
Consumer Forum or the Commission. It also enables him to
earn some money and lead a dignified existence. He has the
freedom and the right to do so. The action is in cor.formity with
the Constitution. It even promotes the objective as contained F
in Article 39A.
67. Shri Gupta further submitted that the provision
permitting the parties to be represented by agents as made in
the Rules has not been challenged. In fact, the provision is in G
strict conformity with the constitution. It violates no law. Actually,
there are various statutes which permit the parties to be
represented by persons who may not be advocates. By way of
instance, reference may be made to the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act; the Income Tax Act and the Sales Tax H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A Act or the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Such
instances can be multiplied.
68. Shri Gupta also dealt with the disciplinary aspect of
the matter. He submitted that in the appeal filed by the Bar
B Council, considerable emphasis on discipline and ethics was
expressed by the learned counsel for the Council. During the
course of hearing, a reference was made to the Regulations
as framed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (For short, 'National Commission') under the Act
C with the approval of the Central Government in 2005. The
Regulations actually appear at page 52 of the Bar Act
(Professional's - 2010 Edition).
69. A perusal thereof shows that the Regulations appear
to have been framed by the National Commission in exercise
D of the power conferred by section 30A with the previous
approval of the Central Government. The footnote indicates that
these were published in the Gazette of India dated May 31,
2005.
E 70. Specifically, Regulation 16 inter afia makes provision
to ensure that the agents do not indulge in any malpractice or
commit misconduct. The relevant part provides as under:-
"(6) A Consumer Forum has to guard itself from touts and
busybodies in the garb of power of attorney holders or
F authorised agents in the proceedings before it.
(7) While a Consumer Forum may permit an authorised
agent to appear before it, but authorised agent shall not
be one who has used this as a profession: Provided that
G this sub-regulation shall not apply in case of advocates.
(8) An authorised agent may be debarred from appearing
before a Consumer Forum if he is found guilty of
misconduct or any other malpractice at any time."
H 71. Mr. Bharat Sangal. learned counsel appearing for the
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 851
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
respondents submitted that Maharashtra Consumer Protection 1'
Rules, 2000 defines 'agents'. The authorized agents can
appear on behalf of complainant in consumer fora.
72. Mr. Sangal also submitted that when the legislature
permits the authorized agents to appear, then they cannot be
8
restrained from appearing before the consumer fora.
73. Mr. Sangal also submitted that the authorized agents
can't be said to practise law. He further submitted that there
are many Forums and Tribunals where non-advocates are
permitted to appear, therefore, there is no merit in restraining C
the agents from appearing before the Consumer Fora.
74. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of
Lucknow Development Authority v. MK. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC
243. This court observed that the provisions of the Act have to D
be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose
of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The
primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such
an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it
should not do any violence to the language of the provisions
and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment. E
In other words, according to the purpose of enactment the
interest of the consumer is paramount.
75. In Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial
Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 this Court observed thus: F
"10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that
the quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by
the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and
the National Commission are not courts though invested G
with some of the powers of a civil court. They are quasi-
judicial tribunals brought into existence to render
inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. It is
equally clear that these forums/commissions were not
supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A system. The idea was to provide an additional forum
providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes
arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and
services. The forum so created is uninhibited by the
requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of a
B court. Any consumer can go and file a complaint.
Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the complainant
himself; any recognized consumers' association can
espouse his cause. Where a large number of consumers
have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint
on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and State
c Governments can act on his/their behalf. The idea was to
help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the
matter of goods and services purchased and availed by
them in a market dominated by large trading and
manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round
D the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The
Act provides for "business-to-consumer" disputes and not
for "business-to-business" disputes. This scheme of the
Act, in our opinion, is relevant to rnd helps in interpreting
the words that fall for consideration in this appeal."
E
76. In Indian Photographic Company Limited v. H.D.
Shourie (1999) 6 SCC 428 the court has held that a rational
approach and not a technical approach is the mandate of law.
F 77. In Dr. J.J. Merchant and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi
(2002) 6 sec 635 it is observed as under:-
"7 .... One of the main objects of the Act is to provide
speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and
for that a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up
G at the district, State and Central level. These quasi-judicial
bodies are required to observe the principles of natural
justice and have been empowered to give relief of a
specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate,
compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance
H with the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 853
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
been provided. The object and purpose of enacting the Act A
is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the
consumers with complaints against defective goods and
deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation
intended to protect a large body of consumers from
exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, B
consumers were required to approach the civil court for
securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is a
known fact that decision in a suit takes years.
12 .... It should be kept in mind that legislature has C
provided alternative efficacious, simple, inexpensive and
speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be
curtailed on the ground that complicated questions of facts
cannot be decided in summary proceedings. It would also
be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is
provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of D
facts required to be dealt with or decided. The Act
provides sufficient safeguards."
78. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union
of India and others (1997) 10 SCC 729, the Supreme Court E
held thus:
"The object of the legislation, as the Preamble of the Act
proclaims, is "for better protection of the interests of
consumers". During the last few years preceding the
enactment there was in this country a marked awareness
F
among the consumers of goods that they were not getting
their money's worth and were being exploited by both
traders and manufacturers of consumer goods. The need
for consumer redressal fora was, therefore, increasingly
felt. Understandably, therefore, legislation was introduced G
and enacted with considerable enthusiasm and fanfare as
a path-breaking benevolent legislation intended to protect
the consumer from exploitation by unscrupulous
manufacturers and traders of consumer goods. A three-
tier fora comprising the District Forum, the State H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A Commission and the National Commission came to be
envisaged under the Act for redressal of grievances of
consumers ... "
79. The agent has been defined both in the Consumer
Protection Rules, 1987 and under the Maharashtra Consumer
8
Protection Rules, 2000. The agents have been permitted to
appear before the Consumer Forums. The appearance of
authorized agents is not inconsistent with section 33 of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
C 80. The legislature in its wisdom has granted permission
to the authorized agents because most of the cases before the
Consumer Forums are small cases of relatively poor people
where legal intricacies are not involved and great legal skills
are not required, which may be handled by the authorized
D agents.
81. The other reason is that a large number of litigants may
not be able to afford heavy professional fees of trained
advocates, therefore, authorized agents have been permitted.
E 82. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to
carefully discern the legislative intention and articulate the same.
In the instant case we are not really called upon to discern
legislative intention because there is specific rule defining the
agents and the provisions of permitting them to appear before
F the Consumer Forums. The agents have been permitted to
appear to accomplish the main object of the act of disposal of
consumers' complaints expeditiously with no costs or small
costs.
83. In our considered view the High Court was fully justified
G in observing that the authorised agents do not practise law
when they are permitted to appear before the District Forums
and the State Commissions.
84. In the impugned judgment the High Court aptly
H observed that many statutes, such as, Sales Tax, Income Tax
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 855
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
and Competition Act also permit non-advocates to represent A
the parties before the authorities and those non-advocates
cannot be said to practise law. On the same analogy those non-
advocates who appear before Consumer fora also cannot be
said to practise law. We approve the view taken by the High
Court in the impugned judgment. B
85. The legislature has given an option to the parties
before the Consumer Forums to either personally appear or be
represented by an 'authorized agent' or by an advocate, then
the court would not be justified in taking away that option or C
interpreting the statute differently.
86. The functioning, conduct and behaviour of authorized
agents can always be regulated by the Consumer Forums.
Advocates are entitled as of right to practise before Consumer
Fora but this privilege cannot be claimed as a matter of right D
by anyone else.
87. When the legislature has permitted authorized agents
to appear on behalf of the complainant, then the courts can't
compel the consumer to engage the services of an advocate.
E
88. However, at this stage we hasten to add that the
National Commission being aware of a possibility of misuse
of the right by an agent had framed Regulation 30-A of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein certain restrictions on
the right of audience and also certain precautions to rule out F
any misuse of liberty granted has been taken by way of framing
Regulation 16. Reference is made to Clauses 6 and 7 thereof.
We may extract the aforesaid provisions for ready reference:
"16. Appearance of Voluntary Consumer G
Organization:
(6) A Consumer Forum has to guard itself from touts and
busybodies in the garb of power of attorney holders or
authorized agents in the proceedings before it.
H
•
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A (7) While a Consumer Forum may permit an authorized
agent to appe~ before it, but authorised agent shall not
be one who has used this as a profession:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply in case of
advocates."
B
89. These provisions are enacted for providing proper
guidelines and safeguards for regulating appearance and
audience of the agents. The aforesaid regulation in our
considered opinion is a reasonable restriction on the right to
C appear by an agent. Such reasonable restrictions as provided
for are to be strictly adhered to and complied with by the
Consumer Forum hearing cases under the Consumer
Protection Act so as to rule out any misuse of the privilege
granted. In terms of the said regulation and other regulations
o as provided and framed by the National Commission and as
approved by the Parliament of India, the Consumer Forum has
the right to prevent an authorized agent to appear in case it is
found and believed that he is using the said right as a
profession. The Consumer Forums being empowered with
E such Regulations would be in a position to judge whether the
agent appearing before it is in any manner exercising such
privileges granted for any ulterior purpose.
90. In the foregoing paragraph, it has been indicated that
many statutes and Acts in India permit non-advocates to
F represent the parties before the authorities and forums.
91. In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are permitted
to appear before quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts. In
most of these jurisdictions, specific rules have besn framed for
3 the regulation of qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour
of the non-advocates appearing in these fora.
92. In most jurisdictions, the statutes or court rules impose
some form of restrictions on appearances of non-advocate
H representatives in quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts.
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 857
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Restrictions on non-advocates agents vary significantly in terms A
of their specificity, but most forums h'ave rules granting them
some discretion in admitting or refusing the appearance of a
non-advocate representative.
Brief summary of Rules pertaining to Non-Advocates in different B
jurisdictions
United States of America
Congressional legislation neither grants nor denies
the right to have a non-attorney representative in c
quasi-judicial proceedings.
The individual fora (administrative law courts) are
allowed to create their own rules for non-attorney
representatives.
D
Several administrative law courts/fora allow non-
attorney representatives to appear if they meet
certain qualifications.
Social Security Administration E
93. In addition to administering Social Security Retirement
and Disability payments, the Social Security Administration
(SSA) handles disputes arising from Social Security Payments
or the lack thereof. If a current or former recipient of social
security believes that he has been wrongfully denied some or F
all of his benefit amount, he may first apply for reconsideration.
94. According to SSA Rules, any attorney in good standing
is allowed to represent a claimant before the ALJ and Appeals
Council. A non-attorney is allowed to represent a claimant if the G
non-attorney :
(1) Is generally known to have a good character and
reputation;
H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R
A (2) Is capable of giving valuable help to you in
connection with your claim;
(3) Is not disqualified or suspended from acting as a
representative in dealings with us; and
B (4) Is not prohibited by any law from acting as a
representative.
95. SSA rules also restrict the amount that any
representative of claimant (attorney or non-attorney) may
c receive for the services rendered by him.
Tax Court
96. The US Tax Court adjudicates disputes over federal
income tax. Taxpayers are permitted to litigate in many legal
D forums (such as a district federal court), but many choose the
Tax Court because they may litiqate their case without first
paying the disputes tax amount in full.
Non-Attorney Representation
E
97. Tax Court Rules state that all representatives must be
admitted to practice before the Tax Court in order to appear in
proceedings on behalf of a taxpayer. To be admitted, a non-
attorney must pass a special written examination and obtain
sponsorship from two persons who are already admitted to
F practice before the Court
98. Representatives before the Court are instructed to act
"in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association."
G Representatives may be disciplined for inappropriate conduct·
and may be suspended or banned from appearing in the Court.
Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims
99. The Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims reviews
H decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which adjudicates
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 859
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
disputes pertaining to Veteran's benefits. A
Non-Attorney representation
100. A non-attorney may represent claimants if (1) he is
under direct supervision of an attorney or (2) he is employed
by an organization that the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs has B
deemed is competent to handle veterans' claims. However, if
the Court deems it appropriate it may admit non-attorney
representatives to represent the claimants.
South Africa c
1 The Equality Court
101. The Equality Court hears complaints pertaining to
unfair discrimination, harassment and hate speech. The court
rules allow parties in this court to be represented by lawyers D
and non-lawyers. However, the rules also require the judge of
the court inform a party accordingly if he is of the opinion that
a particular non-attorney representative "is not a suitable
person to represent the party."
E
England and Wales
102. There are two kinds of courts in England that are
similar in structure and function to the consumer courts in India:
Magistrate Courts and Tribunals.
F
Magistrates' Courts
103. Magistrates' Courts are lowest level of court in
England and Wales and deals with minor civil and criminal
offences. There are also specialist courts within the
Magistrates' Courts system, such as the Family Proceedings c,
Court and the Youth Court. Under statute, a party may only be
represented in a Magistrates' Court by a "legal representative".
A "legal representative" is a person who has been authorized
by a government-approved regulator to perform "reserved legal H
activities."
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C R.
A Tribunals
104. England and Wales also have a fairly complex
system of tribunals that hear special complaints. These tribunals
are similar to US administrative courts in that they are allowed
to create their own procedural rules that regulate
8
representation. For instance, the Asylum and Immigration
Tribunal permits non-attorney representatives to appear if they
meet certain requirements elaborated in Section 84 of the
Immigration and Asylum Act, 199. Other tribunals may follow
different procedures.
c
Small Claims Court
105. There is no bar for small claims court. A non-attorney
may appear as a representative without prior authorization from
0 the court. He may, however, be dismissed at the judge's
discretion.
(1) Non-attorney advocates do not appear to be bound
by any code of conduct. But they may be dismissed
by a judge if they judge disapproves of their
E conduct.
(2) The judge may disqualify a non-attorney from
appearing in court if the judge "has reason to
believe" the non-attorney "has intentionally misled
F the court, or otherwise demonstrated that he is
unsuitable to exercise [the right to be a
representative]. The statute specifically mentions
that the judge may disqualify a representative for
conquct done in previous judicial appearances.
G (3) The court rules and relevant legislation do not
appear to prescribe a limit to the number of
appearances a non-lawyer can make before the
small claims court. However, the statute allows a
judge to discipline a non-attorney representative for
H conduct in previous judicial proceedings. This
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 861
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI. J.]
suggests that if a judge believes a non-attorney is A
making frequent appearances before a small
claims court and charging in appropriate fees, the
judge may disqualify the non-attorney from
appearing in a particular case.
B
Australia
106. State Governments in Australia have their own court
systems and also specialized courts to deal with certain subject
matter. In the State of Victoria, statutory law states that only
lawyers may appear in court as representatives with a few C
exceptions. A non-attorney may represent a party in a cause
of action for a debt or liquidated demand if the non-attorney is
in the exclusive employment of the aggrieved party. Also, the
statute mentions that a non-attorney representative may appear
if empowered by some other piece of legislation. D
New Zealand
107. New Zealand has a large number of tribunals that are
similar to India's consumer courts and seek to provide quick E
and easy dispute resolution. There appears to be a strong
preference in tribunals for the parties to represent themselves;
professional lawyers are rarely allowed to appear as
representatives. Two tribunals are discussed below, but New
Zealand's other tribunals should function similarly.
F
Disputes Tribunal
108. The Disputes Tribunal hears civil complaints that
concern· amounts less than $15,000. Parties subject to
proceedings are generally required to represent themselves. G
However, the Tribunal may permit a representative to appear
on a party's behalf under certain special circumstances.
Representatives may only appear with specific authorization
from the Tribunal and cannot be lawyers.
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Directions
109. In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and
unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State
Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate
B to direct the National Commission to frame comprehensive
rules regarding appearances of the agents, representatives,
registered organizations and/or non-advocates appearing
before the National Commission, the State Commissions and
the District Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and
ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates/representatives,
C registered organizations and/or agents appearing before the
consumer forums.
The National Commission may consider following suggestions
while framing rules
D
110. The Commission may consider non-advocates
appearing without accreditation - A party may appoint a non-
advocate as its representative provided that the representative-
.( 1) is appearing on an individual case basis
E
(2) has a pre-existing relationship with the complainant
(e.g., as a relative, neighbour, business associate or personal
friend)
F (3) is not receiving any form of direct or indirect
remuneration for appearing before the Forum and files a written
declaration to that effect
(4) demonstrates to the presiding officer of the Forum that
he or she is competent to represent the party.
G
Accreditation Process
(a) The National Commission may consider creating a
process through which non-advocates may be
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 863
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)
accredited to practice as representatives before a A
Forum.
(b) Non-advocates who are accredited through this
process shall be allowed to appear before a Forum
on a regular basis
B
(c) The accreditation process may consist of -
(1) an written examination that tests an applicant's
knowledge of relevant law and ability to make legal
presentations and arguments c
(2) an inspection of the applicant's educational and
professional background
(3) an inspection of the applicant's criminal record
D
(d) the National Commission may prescribe additional
requirements for accreditation at its discretion
provided that the additional requirements are not
arbitrary and do not violate existing law or the
Constitution. E
Fees
(a) A representative who wishes to receive a fee must
file a written request before the Forum
F
(b) The presiding officer will decide the amount of the
fee, if any, a representative may charge or receive
(c) When evaluating a representative's request for a
fee, the presiding officer may consider the following
factors : G
(1) the extent and type of services the representative
performed
(2) the complexity of the case
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (3) the level of skill and competence required of the
representative in giving the services
(4) the amount of time the representative spent on the
case; and
B (5) the ability of the party to pay the fee
(d) If a party is seeking monetary damages, its
representative may not seek more a fee of more
than 20% of the damages
c Code of Conduct for representatives
The National Commission to create a code of conduct
which would apply to non-advocates, registered organizations
and agents appearing before a Forum.
D
Disciplinary Powers of a Forum
(a) The presiding officer of a Forum may be given
specific power to discipline non-advocates, agents,
authorized organizations and representatives for
E violating the code of conduct or other behaviour that
is unfitting in a Forum
(b) In exercising its disciplinary authority, the presiding
officer may -
F
(1) revoke a representative's privilege to appear before
the instant case
(2) suspend a representative's privilege to appear
before the Forum
G
(3) ban a representative from appearing before the
forum
(4) impose a monetary fine on the representative
H
C. VENKATACHALAM v. AJITKUMAR C. SHAH AND 865
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
111. We direct the National Commission to frame A
comprehensive Rules as expeditiously as possible, in any
event, within three months from the date of communication of
this order. The copy of this judgment be sent to the National
Commission.
B
112. On consideration of totality of the facts and
circumstances, the view taken by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment cannot be said
to be erroneous and unsustainable in law. Consequently, these
appeals being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed. C
113. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct
the parties to bear their own costs.
114. Before we part, we would like to observe that we had
requested Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta, a distinguished Senior D
Advocate to assist the court as amicus curiae. He graciously
agreed and provided excellent assistance to this court. Shri
Gupta also submitted written submissions. We record our deep
appreciation for his valuable assistance provided by him to this
court. E
B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "consumer protection"Sign in to search